Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Im not going to try and defend the idea, as I feel I can work with > > simpler notions. But 1 and + would be considered value identifiers. > > You might be right, but what I will certainly do in a near future is > an implementation of a domain whose elements are combinatorial > species. That domain will be a semiring, so I will use + and 1 to > denote the "elements" Plus > (http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/combinatsu23.html#x37-550008.10) > and EmptySetSpecies > (http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/combinatsu17.html#x31-380008.4.1). > As you see these identifiers actually denote not only domains but > functions that return domains. Would you like me not to use 1 just > because my elements would be domains? > > Having the types as first class objects has the consequence that type > can appear in places where you expect an "element".
Ok. There are certainly issues and am dropping the idea for now. > > > However, I need to explore the use tuples exclusively to lift types > > otherwise hidden by sope into an enclosing context. I suspected that > > type patterns would be generally useful but I like the simplicity of > > Martins approach and will try to work with that. > > Martin was just demonstrating ordinary use of a dependent type. Yes. Unfortuanately it is not so ordinary for Spad. I will see what I can do. > > Ralf Thanks, Steve _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
